MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 15 2016, 6:03 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kristina J. Jacobucci Gregory Zoeller
Newby, Lewis, Kaminski & Jones, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
LaPorte, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Larry Crume, December 15, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
46A04-1510-CR-1805
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael S.
Appellee-Plaintiff Bergerson, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
46D01-1409-MR-263
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Larry Crume (“Crume”) was convicted in LaPorte Superior Court of murder,
attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. He was ordered to serve
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 1 of 17
an aggregate sentence of 120 years. Crume appeals his convictions and sentence
and argues:
I. The trial court abused its discretion when it consolidated his
trial with his co-defendant’s trial;
II. The conspiracy charge should have been severed from the
murder and attempted murder charges;
III. The evidence is insufficient to support his conspiracy
conviction; and,
IV. His 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of
the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 15, 2014, Crume, Johnny McSwain (“McSwain”), and Tyrone
Stalling (“Stalling”) approached a house in Michigan City, Indiana and asked
whether Daniel Mallett (“Mallet”) was home. Mallet’s godmother lived in the
home and her daughter told them that Mallet had just left. The trio went back
across the street and sat on a brick wall to await Mallet’s return.
[4] Mallet and Barry Williams (“Williams”), who had gone to a nearby gas station,
returned shortly thereafter. McSwain, Stalling, and Crume confronted Mallet
and Williams, and McSwain stated, “why you all making it hot over here, we
can’t make no money.” Tr. p. 863. McSwain was upset that Mallet and
Williams were attracting police attention to the area. Williams replied, “f*ck
you all,” and a physical confrontation ensued. Id. at 864.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 2 of 17
[5] McSwain punched Williams in the face. Williams fell to the ground and lost
consciousness. Mallet attempted to punch McSwain and then ran toward his
godmother’s house. McSwain told Crume to shoot Mallet. Crume pulled a gun
out of his pocket and fired several shots at Mallet. Mallet was almost struck by
several bullets, but he was able to run into the house without being shot. Bullets
hit the screen door and wall near the doorway as Mallet ran inside. Crume then
walked over to Williams, who was still unconscious, and shot him in the head.
Crume and McSwain then fled from the scene.
[6] The next day, McSwain arranged for his girlfriend to bail his friend, Deanbra
Martin (“Martin”), out of the LaPorte County Jail. They proceeded to
McSwain’s home where McSwain admitted that he told Crume to kill
Williams. Crume admitted to shooting Williams and attempting to shoot
Mallet. Crume told Martin that he had disposed of the gun used to murder
Williams.
[7] McSwain then asked Martin to kill Mallet so that Mallet could not talk to the
police. McSwain, Martin, and Crume met more than once to form a plan to kill
Mallet. McSwain told Martin they needed a gun, walkie-talkies, a handicap
license plate, and a “low-low,” i.e., an inconspicuous vehicle. Tr. pp. 1382,
1396.
[8] On September 12, 2014, Martin was arrested on an unrelated charge. Martin
told the arresting officers that he had information about Williams’ murder. He
also told them that McSwain and Crume were planning to kill Mallet. Martin
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 3 of 17
agreed to be a confidential informant and cooperate with the murder
investigation.
[9] Five days after his arrest, Martin met with Crume and McSwain to discuss the
plan to kill Mallet. McSwain said they needed to kill Mallet quickly, and Crume
nodded in agreement.
[10] On September 19, 2014, McSwain and Crume decided they would establish an
alibi by going to Walmart while Martin killed Mallet. McSwain gave Martin a
handgun. After Martin received the handgun from McSwain, he turned it over
to the police, who were monitoring Martin’s conversation with McSwain.
Later that night, as they had previously arranged, McSwain called Martin to tell
him that he and Crume were at Walmart. The telephone call was the signal that
Martin was supposed to use the gun provided by McSwain to kill Mallet. After
calling Martin, McSwain and Crume walked around the Walmart store for a
significant length of time. Upon leaving Walmart, they were arrested for
Williams’ murder.
[11] After McSwain and Crume were charged with murder, the State moved to
consolidate their trials. Crume objected to the motion. On February 18, 2015,
the trial court granted the State’s motion to consolidate the trials and also
allowed the State to amend the charging information to include Count II, Level
1 felony attempted murder and Count III, Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit
murder. Crume asked the trial court to sever the conspiracy charge from the
murder and attempted murder charges. The trial court set a hearing for the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 4 of 17
motion. However, on that hearing date, Crume obtained new counsel and
requested a continuance. Crume did not renew his motion to sever, and it was
not heard or ruled on.
[12] Crume’s and McSwain’s jury trial was held from June 22 through July 1, 2015.
Both were found guilty as charged.
[13] The trial court held Crume’s sentencing hearing on September 23, 2015. The
trial court found the following aggravating circumstances: Crume’s history of
criminal or delinquent behavior and that the harm, injury, loss or damage was
significant and greater than the statutory elements of the offense. The court
determined that the only mitigating circumstance was that imprisonment will
result in undue hardship on Crume’s dependent child. After concluding that the
aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstance, the trial
court ordered Crume to serve a 120-year aggregate sentence: fifty-five years for
murder, thirty-five years for attempted murder, and thirty years for conspiracy
to commit murder, to be served consecutively. Crume now appeals.
I. Consolidated Trials
[14] First, Crume argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the
State’s motion to consolidate his trial with McSwain’s trial.
Several defendants may be joined in a single prosecution.
However, upon a motion by defendant, the trial court may order
a separate trial whenever the court determines that a separate
trial is necessary to protect a defendant’s right to a speedy trial or
is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or
innocence of a defendant. The trial court has discretion to grant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 5 of 17
or deny a motion for separate trials. However, a trial court must
grant severance of trials where there are mutually antagonistic
defenses and the acceptance of one defense precludes the
acquittal of the other. Upon review, the trial court’s decision is
measured by what actually occurred at trial rather than what is
alleged in the motion.
Lee v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 1997) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
[15] Crume argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it consolidated his
trial with McSwain’s trial because “the evidence that was introduced against
[McSwain] was substantially different than the evidence that the State
introduced against [Crume], especially with respect to” the conspiracy charge.
Appellant’s Br. at 15. Crume observes that the evidence admitted at trial
established that McSwain and Martin had conversations concerning the plan to
kill Mallet, and the jury could have convicted Crume of the conspiracy charge
solely because of his association with McSwain.1 Id. at 15-16.
[16] Crume and McSwain were charged with the same offenses, they were
accomplices, and the same evidence applied to each. Crume has not established
1
Crume also argues that Martin’s testimony was confusing because he often used the pronouns “he” or “we”
when testifying about the plan to kill Mallet; therefore “the difficulty in creating a clear record regarding who
was involved in each conversation relative” to the conspiracy charge “certainly could have created confusion
in the mind of the jurors, such that consolidation of the trials was inappropriate.” Appellant’s Br. at 16.
However, Crume does not cite to specific testimony in support of his argument, and we observe that the
attorneys and trial court often requested that Martin use names instead of pronouns while testifying.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 6 of 17
that their defenses were mutually antagonistic or that acceptance of McSwain’s
defense would have precluded Crume’s acquittal.
[17] The trial court also appropriately instructed the jury that it should “give
separate consideration to each Defendant. Each Defendant is entitled to have
his case decided on the evidence and the law that applies to him. If any
evidence is limited to one Defendant you must not consider it in deciding the
case of any other Defendant[].” Appellant’s App. p. 290.
[18] Importantly, there was also direct evidence of Crume’s involvement in the
charged offenses. Mallet testified concerning the altercation between McSwain,
Crume, Williams, and Mallet, and that he saw Crume pull the gun out of his
pocket that he used to shoot at Mallet and to kill Williams. Also, the
confidential informant, Martin, testified that Crume admitted to shooting
Williams and agreed to the plan to kill Mallet. Tr. pp. 1386, 1389.
[19] Finally, Crume argues that consolidating his trial with McSwain’s created a
substantial risk that the jury would rely on McSwain’s incriminating statement
to determine Crume’s guilt in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123,
126 (1968); see also I.C. § 35-34-1-11(b). Specifically, at trial Martin testified that
McSwain nodded at Crume and told Crume to kill Williams. Tr. p. 1387.
[20] In Bruton, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the admissibility of a co-
defendant's pre-trial statement during a joint trial. The Court concluded a
substantial risk exists that the jury might consider one co-defendant’s
incriminating pre-trial statement against the other codefendant as well. 391 U.S.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 7 of 17
at 126. Because the former cannot be forced against his will to take the stand,
the latter is denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses against him. Id. at 137. However, a co-defendant’s statements violate
Bruton only if they “facially incriminate” another defendant. See Richardson v.
Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987); Fayson v. State, 726 N.E.2d 292, 294 (Ind.
2000). In addition, harmless error analysis applies to a Bruton violation claim.
Fayson, 726 N.E.2d at 294-95.
[21] We agree that the challenged testimony implicated Crume in Williams’ murder,
although it proved only that McSwain directed Crume to shoot Williams and
not that Crume actually did so. Moreover, the testimony was cumulative of
Martin’s and Mallet’s testimony, i.e., that Crume admitted shooting Williams
and that Mallet saw Crume pull a gun out of his pocket right before shots were
fired. Therefore, Crume cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the
admission of the challenged testimony.
[22] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it consolidated Crume’s and McSwain’s trials.
II. Motion to Sever
[23] Crume also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to sever the
conspiracy charge from the attempted murder and murder charges. Indiana
Code Section 35-34-1-9(a) provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 8 of 17
Two (2) or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment
or information, with each offense stated in a separate count,
when the offenses:
(1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a
single scheme or plan; or
(2) are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts
connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or
plan.
[24] Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-11(a) governs severance of charges and states:
Whenever two (2) or more offenses have been joined for trial in
the same indictment or information solely on the ground that
they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall
have a right to a severance of the offenses. In all other cases the
court, upon motion of the defendant or the prosecutor, shall
grant a severance of offenses whenever the court determines that
severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the
defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense considering:
(1) the number of offenses charged;
(2) the complexity of the evidence to be offered; and
(3) whether the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the
evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense.
[25] If offenses have been joined solely because they are of the same or similar
character, a defendant is entitled to severance as a matter of right. Pierce v. State,
29 N.E.3d 1258, 1264 (Ind. 2015). However, if the offenses have been joined
because the defendant's underlying acts are connected together, as in this case,
we review a trial court's ruling on a severance motion for an abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 9 of 17
Id. See also Robinson v. State, 56 N.E.3d 652, 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)
(explaining that “[i]f the operative facts establish a pattern of activity beyond
mere satisfaction of the statutory elements, such as that multiple crimes have
been committed with a common victim, modus operandi, and motive, a
defendant is not entitled to severance of charges as of right”). When we review
discretionary denial of a motion to sever, “we consider whether severance was
required in order to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or
innocence after reviewing subsections 1-3 of Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-
11(a).” Id. at 656 (citing Ben–Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141, 1145
(Ind.1997)).
[26] Crume argues that the plan to kill Mallet was separate and distinct from
Mallet’s attempted murder and Williams’ murder that occurred several weeks
earlier. He also observes that the State presented separate witnesses and
evidence to prove the conspiracy charge. Finally, Crume claims that “[b]y
permitting evidence” concerning the conspiracy charge “to be introduced before
the jury made a determination about [Crume’s] guilt regarding Count I,
Murder, and Count II, Attempted Murder, the trial court created a substantial
risk of prejudice that the facts involved in Count III, Conspiracy, would sway
the jury’s perception of whether [Crume] was involved in the” murder and
attempted murder counts. Appellant’s Br. at 19.
[27] McSwain and Crume plotted to kill Mallet so that he would not talk to the
police about Williams’ murder and their attempt to kill him. Therefore, the
underlying acts were undeniably connected together. See, e.g., Smoote v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 10 of 17
708 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 1999) (concluding that joinder of offenses was proper
because the defendant killed the victim to ensure that the victim would not
implicate him in another crime). Moreover, Crume was charged with three
offenses, and while the record is voluminous, much of the evidence consisted of
the testimony of the investigating detectives, eyewitnesses, and the confidential
informant, and was not overly complex. Finally, because the evidence
supporting each of the three offenses was distinct to each offense, it is
reasonable to conclude that the jury was able to come to an intelligent decision
regarding each charge. For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court
acted within its discretion when it refused to sever the conspiracy charge from
the murder and attempted murder charges.
III. Sufficient Evidence that Crume Participated in the Conspiracy
[28] Crume also argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove
that he participated in McSwain’s plan to kill Mallet.
When we review a claim challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of the witnesses. Instead, we consider only the
evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support
the verdict. And we will affirm the conviction if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016) (citing Treadway v. State, 924
N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 11 of 17
[29] To convict Crume of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit murder, the State
was required to prove that Crume conspired to commit murder
when, with the intent to commit murder, [Crume] agreed with
Johnny McSwain and a Confidential Source to knowingly or
intentionally kill Daniel Mallet, and [Crume] or co-conspirator
Johnny McSwain did perform one or more of the following overt
acts in furtherance of the agreement, to wit: Johnny McSwain
provided a firearm to the Confidential Source to kill Daniel
Mallet; and/or [Crume] and co-conspirator Johnny McSwain
traveled to the Walmart in LaPorte, Indiana to establish an alibi
for the time of the murder.
Appellant’s App. p. 117; see also Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-2 (defining conspiracy);
35-42-1-1 (defining murder).
[30] Crume argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he
agreed to commit the murder or that he performed an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy. Crume claims the only evidence linking him to the conspiracy
was Martin’s testimony that Crume nodded his head in agreement while Martin
and McSwain discussed the plot to kill Mallet. He also argues that his presence
at Walmart “simply cannot constitute an overt act taken in furtherance of the
conspiracy.” Appellant’s Br. at 24.
[31] Crume attempted to kill Mallet and killed Williams. Mallet saw Crume pull a
gun out of his pocket just before Crume started shooting. Crume was present
and nodded his head in agreement during two discussions McSwain had with
Martin about killing Mallet. McSwain wanted Martin to kill Mallet so Mallet
could not cooperate with the police concerning their investigation of Williams’
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 12 of 17
murder. McSwain provided a gun to Martin. McSwain and Martin agreed that
the “signal” for Martin to kill Mallet would be a telephone call from McSwain,
and McSwain would state that he and Crume were at Walmart. As previously
arranged, McSwain made the phone call, and Crume and McSwain went to
Walmart to establish their alibi for Mallet’s murder. This evidence is sufficient
to establish that Crume agreed to the plan to kill Mallet. See Erkins v. State, 13
N.E.3d 400, 407 (Ind. 2014) (stating that “[i]t is not necessary ... to present
direct evidence of a formal express agreement. The agreement as well as the
requisite guilty knowledge and intent may be inferred from circumstantial
evidence alone, including overt acts of the parties in pursuance of the criminal
act.”).
[32] In addition, the State proved two overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
First, McSwain provided the gun to Martin. See Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2(b) (“The
state must allege and prove that either the person or the person with whom he
or she agreed performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.”).
Second, as they had agreed, Crume and McSwain went to Walmart to establish
an alibi for the time frame during which Martin was supposed to murder
Mallet. For all of these reasons, we affirm Crume’s conviction for Level 2
conspiracy to commit murder.
IV. Inappropriate Sentence
[33] Finally, Crume argues that his 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Even if a trial
court acts within its lawful discretion in imposing a sentence, Article 7, Sections
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 13 of 17
4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and
revision of that sentence. Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352, 355–56 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2011). This authority is implemented via Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B),
which provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” However, “we must and should exercise deference to
a trial court's sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give
‘due consideration’ to that decision and because we understand and recognize
the unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.” Id. at
355-56.
[34] Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, “[the principal role
of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify
some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of
the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each
case.” Fernbach v. State, 954N.E.2d 1080, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). We also “focus on the
forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or
concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual
count.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
given case. Id. at 1224. The burden is on the defendant to persuade us that his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 14 of 17
sentence is inappropriate. Trainor, 950 N.E.2d at 356 (citing Reid v. State, 876
N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind. 2007)).
[35] Crume was ordered to serve an aggregate 120-year sentence for his three
convictions. He was ordered to serve consecutive terms of the advisory fifty-five
years for murder,2 a sentence five years over the advisory of thirty-five years for
attempted murder,3 and a maximum thirty years for conspiracy to commit
murder.4
[36] Concerning the nature of his offenses, we observe that Crume murdered
Williams by shooting the unconscious Williams in the face. Although there is
no evidence that Williams suffered any pain from the shooting, Crume
callously shot a man who had no means of defending himself. Crume also shot
at Mallet as he ran into a nearby house, subjecting both Mallet and the
occupants of the residence to the possibility of injury or death. Several bullets
struck the house near the front door. Finally, Crume conspired with McSwain
and Martin to kill Mallet so that Mallet could not cooperate with the police
investigation of Williams’ murder and Mallet’s attempted murder.
2
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 (establishing that a person convicted of murder “shall be imprisoned for a fixed
term of between forty-five (45) years and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory sentence being fifty-five (55)
years”).
3
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (establishing that a person convicted of a Level 1 felony “shall be imprisoned for a
fixed term of between twenty (20) years and forty (40) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30)
years”).
4
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 (establishing that a person convicted of a Level 2 felony “shall be imprisoned for a
fixed term of between ten (10) years and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and
one-half (17 ½) years”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 15 of 17
[37] Turning to the character of the offender, we observe that Crume has one young
dependent. His own childhood was difficult, and he did not have a stable home
life. Crume graduated from high school and attended some college courses.
However, he was not employed when he was arrested in this case.
[38] Moreover, Crume, who was twenty-four years old when he committed these
offenses, has not lived a law-abiding life. Crume has a juvenile adjudication for
arson, a Class D felony if committed by an adult. He was convicted of
misdemeanor battery in 2009 and violated his probation in that case. He was
convicted of possession of marijuana in Texas, where he has an active warrant
on a motion to revoke probation. Crume also pleaded guilty to two counts of A
misdemeanor conversion. Finally, on the date of his sentencing hearing, he had
pending charges for felony possession of a sawed-off shotgun and criminal gang
activity, as well as misdemeanor charges of carrying a handgun without a
permit, public intoxication, and battery resulting in bodily injury.
[39] Crume’s criminal history and his callous disregard for human life leads us to
conclude that his aggregate 120-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the
nature of his offenses and the character of the offender.
Conclusion
[40] The trial court did not err when it consolidated Crume’s trial with McSwain’s
trial and when it failed to sever the conspiracy charge from the murder and
attempted murder charges. The evidence is sufficient to support Crume’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 16 of 17
conspiracy conviction, and his 120-year aggregate sentence is not inappropriate
in light of the nature of his offenses and the character of the offender.
[41] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1510-CR-1805 | December 15, 2016 Page 17 of 17
Larry Crume v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion